Ted Cruz: Once Obama resigns, we can talk about clerk Kim Davis.

[Krugminator2]

If the definition of marriage is as between one man and a woman, that word can't be used in a gay contract. Who has the authority to define marriage in a given jurisdiction and the words to name specific contracts?

You're asking for something more than freedom of contract. You're asking that a contract be given a specific name. This is not part of freedom of contract.

Here is the main dictionary definition of marriage from Dictionary.com. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

"any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established invarious parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognizedlegally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partnersmutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example,opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, andarranged marriage:"

 

[wizardwatson]

Here is the main dictionary definition of marriage from Dictionary.com. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

"any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established invarious parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognizedlegally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partnersmutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example,opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, andarranged marriage:"

Yes, and I've noticed many other internet dictionaries have changed as well to now say (in some jurisdictions same-sex couples as well).

But here's the Black's Law dictionary definition:

http://thelawdictionary.org/marriage/

Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, Is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

It's like now that the definition has been changed we're going to go about and spread the lie that this definition never existed.

Hello Confederate Flag, meet your new friend "2015 marriage".

 

[goldwater's ghost]

This is the exact speech I wanted Rand to make. Ted Cruz will be in second or first within a month. He will have an entire galvanized Christian base that will go to war for him. Rand really has to get a pulse for this nation and the GOP Base if he wants to win. He missed on immigration, he's missed on religious freedom. He's running out of time to find an issue he can get people to rally around

 

[wizardwatson]

Another wizard original for Kim Davis. I'm also reposting my confederate flag comic as I feel they are related in spirit. Hope you like!

 

[Zippyjuan]

Rights and freedoms for everybody? Or only for some people? When you start excluding classes of people you are no longer a free society. Isn't the point here to promote freedoms- not restrict them? You- you can get married. Congratulations! You- sorry, can't allow that. Families may destroy society. Love does not matter in your case.

 

[Dianne]

She should be fired, not jailed. This is not a religious freedom argument. She doesn't have to agree with gay marriage, if her faith tells her so. But if her employer tells her to do something, and she doesn't do it.... you either quit or you get fired. If I worked at a government office and my boss suddenly told me I had to do something I didn't like or agree with, I'd quit. She should have quit in good conscience... she has no right to NOT do what she is hired to do, her personal opinions and beliefs don't mean squat. My faith and my beliefs inform what I do, but they don't dictate to my boss what he can tell me to do or not do.

She can't be fired. She was elected by the people. Only impeachment.

 

[euphemia]

Okay, let's all get the information straight:

First of all, Kim Davis is elected. She can't be fired. She can be recalled, but that would be up to the voters of Rowan County, Kentucky. Everything that goes out from that county has her name on it. The ruling just happened, so she really has not had time to make the decision whether to keep her job or not. Certainly the people of Rowan County had no problem keeping her in office.

She did not deny anyone their rights. Here's the opportunity for all the people who think only the individuals can define marriage to step up and make a case. Nobody was denied a right here. There are other counties in Kentucky where people can apply for a marriage license--provided they think they need one--and get one.

The Obama administration has now made being a Christian and living according to strongly held convictions against the law. He won't cut off funding to San Francisco or arrest the mayor for defying federal law resulting in a woman's death, but he will arrest a Christian woman in small town Kentucky because she won't hand out a marriage license. Someone please explain how those are different?

 

[hells_unicorn]

This is the exact speech I wanted Rand to make. Ted Cruz will be in second or first within a month. He will have an entire galvanized Christian base that will go to war for him. Rand really has to get a pulse for this nation and the GOP Base if he wants to win. He missed on immigration, he's missed on religious freedom. He's running out of time to find an issue he can get people to rally around

Rand's forte has always been civil liberties and economics. I think he has played it reasonably smart by being supportive of Davis while not going as far as Cruz did. Paul doesn't want the evangelicals to oppose him, but he can't go toe to toe with Cruz and Huckabee on evangelicals and hope to galvanize them without alienating the non-Christian and centrist part of his base.

 

[twomp]

Bible thumpers using the government to enforce their religious beliefs. Give the license to gay couples or give it to no one. Its pretty simple. This is a perfect example of how bible thumpers embrace big government.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Bible thumpers using the government to enforce their religious beliefs. Give the license to gay couples or give it to no one. Its pretty simple. This is a perfect example of how bible thumpers embrace big government.

Did you even read tobismom's post?

 

[puppetmaster]

Really, Zip? The Constitution tells the federal government what they CAN do. You've never heard of enumerated powers? If it ain't specifically enumerated, they don't have the authority to do it.

The 10th Amendment takes it from there.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Hip hip......hooray

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

Oh right, I forgot Cruz was running.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

When you start excluding classes of people you are no longer a free society.

Backwards. If you are not permitted to exclude people, you no longer live in a free society.

The right to exclude is fundamental. Discrimination is the underlying basis of all human progress.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

No they can't. There are fundamental rights every individual has. The right to contract is fundamental. A state government cannot deny the right to contract. The whole purpose to having a government is protect individual liberty. If a local jurisdiction oversteps, then it is the responsibility of the federal government to overturn the local government.

A state cannot enforce segregation or deny interracial marriage.

Can so!

And I happen to think (and hope) that they will, in the matter of gay marriage.

I hope everyone can see that Krugminator is arguing for gay marriage, not for interracial marriage. But the only consistent position is mine. Do you oppose things like:

Your locality being forced to issue gay marriage licenses
Your private club being forced to have openly gay people teach your boys and young men
Your church being forced to comply with non-discrimination laws -- that is, to employ openly gay people (and at an acceptable rate to prove they're not discriminating)
You personally being forced to rent to gay people
Your religious college (BYU, Liberty College, Hillsdale College) being forced to admit homosexual students, hire homosexual professors, de-segregate male and female dorms, and of course to allow and celebrate homosexual cohabitation
Your business being forced to not take any action -- or even inaction -- intolerant of or discriminatory towards perverts?

If you want to oppose this dystopian future, and to be consistent, you have to oppose all laws against discrimination. There is no halfway, middle-ground, holding position that can stand. The analogy used by the gay mafia, like it or not, is actually perfect. It's very compelling. If you accept the proposition that is was righteous and wonderful and a step forward for progress for the state to start forcibly blessing miscegenation, and forcibly prohibiting anyone from exerting social pressure against such unions (by refusing to rent to them, refusing to accept their coupling as a legitimate marriage, making deed covenants prohibiting them from moving into their neighborhoods), well then that's end game. Just wave the white flag now. You've already lost.

Discrimination is a positive social good. The more discrimination the better. All discrimination -- that is, all private property rights -- must be legalized.

 

[Working Poor]

Cruz is an idiot if he thinks Obama is going to resign.

 

[Krugminator2]

Can so!

And I happen to think (and hope) that they will, in the matter of gay marriage.

I hope everyone can see that Krugminator is arguing for gay marriage, not for interracial marriage. But the only consistent position is mine. Do you oppose things like:

Your locality being forced to issue gay marriage licenses
Your private club being forced to have openly gay people teach your boys and young men
Your church being forced to comply with non-discrimination laws -- that is, to employ openly gay people (and at an acceptable rate to prove they're not discriminating)
You personally being forced to rent to gay people
Your religious college (BYU, Liberty College, Hillsdale College) being forced to admit homosexual students, hire homosexual professors, de-segregate male and female dorms, and of course to allow and celebrate homosexual cohabitation
Your business being forced to not take any action -- or even inaction -- intolerant of or discriminatory towards perverts?

If you want to oppose this dystopian future, and to be consistent, you have to oppose all laws against discrimination. There is no halfway, middle-ground, holding position that can stand. The analogy used by the gay mafia, like it or not, is actually perfect. It's very compelling. If you accept the proposition that is was righteous and wonderful and a step forward for progress for the state to start forcibly blessing miscegenation, and forcibly prohibiting anyone from exerting social pressure against such unions (by refusing to rent to them, refusing to accept their coupling as a legitimate marriage, making deed covenants prohibiting them from moving into their neighborhoods), well then that's end game. Just wave the white flag now. You've already lost.

Discrimination is a positive social good. The more discrimination the better. All discrimination -- that is, all private property rights -- must be legalized.

Not sure your point. I am, of course, against any anti-discrimination laws. I am totally ambivalent about gay marriage as a social issue. I have a very strong opinion on it from a libertarian, property rights viewpoint. Individuals can discriminate. The state cannot discriminate. Everyone has to be equal under the law.

The role of the state is protect property rights and enforce contracts. Marriage is a contract and property right issues. No one is forcing people to get gay married. The local government is being forced to do its core function, which is to grant and enforce contracts. Protecting individual rights is the legitimate core function of government. Government cannot abdicate that. The right to contract is a foundational right.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Utter nonsense. It's like saying that if the U.S. government violates rights, the United Nations should intervene.

Not quite. The 14th Amendment puts limits on what States can do and gives the federal government the authority to enforce these restrictions. No similar arrangement exists vis a vis the US and the UN.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Do you oppose things like:

Your locality being forced to issue gay marriage licenses
Your private club being forced to have openly gay people teach your boys and young men
Your church being forced to comply with non-discrimination laws -- that is, to employ openly gay people (and at an acceptable rate to prove they're not discriminating)
You personally being forced to rent to gay people, etc.

It's astonishing that you can't distinguish between government action and private action.

 

[euphemia]

The people of Rowan County elected Kim Davis to her position. She's a Democrat. If the voters of her county want to recall her, they can.

In the meantime, there are people aplenty who go on record in defiance of federal law. The President is one of them. States that refuse to enforce federal drug law should be punished. People who refuse to enforce federal immigration law should be in jail.

This is not about federal law at all. It is about it being okay to defy some laws and not others. Can't have it both ways, folks.

 

[HankRicther12]

No they can't. There are fundamental rights every individual has. The right to contract is fundamental. A state government cannot deny the right to contract. The whole purpose to having a government is protect individual liberty. If a local jurisdiction oversteps, then it is the responsibility of the federal government to overturn the local government.

A state cannot enforce segregation or deny interracial marriage.

Marriage benefits are not a fundamental right. Show me where gays were ever forbidden from entering into contracts? You don't even know what you're talking about, like most people who discuss this topic.

Okay, let's all get the information straight:

First of all, Kim Davis is elected. She can't be fired. She can be recalled, but that would be up to the voters of Rowan County, Kentucky. Everything that goes out from that county has her name on it. The ruling just happened, so she really has not had time to make the decision whether to keep her job or not. Certainly the people of Rowan County had no problem keeping her in office.

She did not deny anyone their rights. Here's the opportunity for all the people who think only the individuals can define marriage to step up and make a case. Nobody was denied a right here. There are other counties in Kentucky where people can apply for a marriage license--provided they think they need one--and get one.

The Obama administration has now made being a Christian and living according to strongly held convictions against the law. He won't cut off funding to San Francisco or arrest the mayor for defying federal law resulting in a woman's death, but he will arrest a Christian woman in small town Kentucky because she won't hand out a marriage license. Someone please explain how those are different?

Glad some people see it, and I'm not even a Christian but I certainly realize when you guys fall, it's all over, cuz the Straight, White, Christian, Males all have a bullseye on them, and I fit 3 of the 4.

Rand's forte has always been civil liberties and economics. I think he has played it reasonably smart by being supportive of Davis while not going as far as Cruz did. Paul doesn't want the evangelicals to oppose him, but he can't go toe to toe with Cruz and Huckabee on evangelicals and hope to galvanize them without alienating the non-Christian and centrist part of his base.

I disagree, I am a centrist if you will, not religious at all, but I realize how incredibly fucked up it is to put someone in jail for refusing to do something that goes against their religion, those that will argue "it's her job" - well, we could have a discussion on that, but even humoring that mindset for a moment they could reassign her somewhere else.

I can't believe we live in a society where anyone actually believes throwing someone in jail for having a different political view is not about the scariest thing they've seen their whole lives.

Bible thumpers using the government to enforce their religious beliefs. Give the license to gay couples or give it to no one. Its pretty simple. This is a perfect example of how bible thumpers embrace big government.

What are they trying to "enforce" nitwit? She used no force on anyone, force was used on her, how dumb are you?